Sorry to break it to you, but your neighbor is more diverse. And denying there's any racism at all in your country is the most retarded thing you can do. As far as I've seen, most canadians hate the indigenous population and call them "Lysol drinkers" and kidnap and assault Natives on the streets. Nearly half of the US is dominated by minorities, and the only place with diversity in your country is in toronto or vancouver.

All I knew the Red Army to do was get slaughtered and have nature beat the Blitz on the Eastern Front. I almost wish the U.S. delayed it's intervention in Europe and let Nazi Germany take out that ****** country. Would have saved the world a hell of a lot of trouble.

We can make up whatever "what ifs" we want, but one thing's for sure, is that Russia took on most of Hitler's forces and withstood. They saved the rest of the world many, many, MANY casualties. It's so obvious that I don't really understand why Germany didn't just form a long-term alliance with the USSR. Seemed like a logical choice, because then nothing in the whole world could stop them. I guess Hitler just didn't want to share the power.

if russia was invading germany they wouldve been raped, russia is a lucky ass country, literally anyone tries to invade it becomes the coldest winter in recorded history, and my point is that they didnt save any lives, they lost their own

the ones they would be fighting wouldnt be using the same tactics as the russians, which is basically throw more people at it, and nazis dont slaughter entire countries at random, russia killed and starved half its country in order to do the burned ground tactic

By this point, you're just being stubborn. You're basically saying that if the Germans didn't invade Russia, all the other countries wouldn't be affected. It's a matter of fact that over 800 000 soldiers and thousands of aircraft and tanks were lost by the Germany in the hasty execution of their Barbarossa plan, and if all those soldiers, aircraft and tanks weren't used there, they'd obviously be used to subdue some other, less resilient country, or - if that country resisted - to kill its soldiers! Or are you trying to say a country wouldn't suffer any casualties if a million-strong, technologically superior army was thrown at it?

Even if what you said about their tactics is true (I'm pretty sure you're no expert on this subject, but... whatever), you can't deny the fact that millions of Russian soldiers and civilians sacrificed their lives to defeat nazi germany, which indirectly saved the lives of some other soldiers in some other country which germany might have attacked instead. And it would have attacked it, otherwise what did they raise that huge-ass army for?

So the ratio wouldn't have been 1:1. So what? It's not maths, man, so who knows how many would have died? But every life is precious, so even if their sacrifice saved a quarter of their own people, it still means it saved people. I don't know how much further I can explain this

are you not reading what im sayin? im saying that cause they fought, MORE people died, both germans and russians died, they might have saved some, but they condemned a whole lot more, i mean, when they took berlin not a single damn woman went unraped

So what do you think they should have done? Submitted to the Germans? If that happened, there's a high chance you'd be living in a Nazi state right now. An aggressor showed up in their lands, threatening to take their homes, their lives and their freedom - and they did what they had to, what they always did, Hitler, Napoleon or otherwise - they fought and died for it. And if it weren't for that fact, Hitler would've annihilated everything in his path. You should be THANKING those dead Russians for their having fought.

im saying russians are a lucky breed, and if hitler had shown patience and not engaged them in their home environment they wouldve been ******, second, even if russians hadnt taken germany out america would, they had the atom bomb, third, hitler wasnt evil, history is written by the winners and he only picked out the jews so he would have money to fund the war effort, you know only reason he did the war was so that he could unite all germans into one country, but he had to take down the ones who said no, like great brittain and france, now im not saying what he did was ok by any stretch, but no one is evil, they do what they think is right, he would certainly not have annihilated everything in his path

1) "Lucky breed"? How is being invaded by the largest, most powerful force assembled in all of history being "lucky"? How is having millions of people killed in a years-long war "lucky"? And Hitler wasn't the first to try to conquer Russia. Wasn't the first to fail to do so, either. 2) I'm no expert on history, and neither are you, so we really shouldn't go far into the "what if" territory. Suffice to say that the invasion of Russia saved many other countries a whole lot of casualties, and it's a fact. 3) If invading other countries, killing and enslaving people, and claiming racial superiority is not evil, then I don't know what you mean by that word. And yes, Hitler wouldn't have annihilated EVERYTHING in his path. He'd just put everything under his heel, forcing people to live the way he thought was fit for them. And what couldn't be put under the heel, he'd try to destroy (cough, Russia, cough) - because that's what conquerors do.

reply to 99
invading russia during winter is stupid no matter what you say, scorched earth tactic isnt genius, its basic, and it involves slaughtering your own people the people of ukraine where this was done were in no way in on the scorched earth tactics, they got ****** over every time someone invaded russia and wanted out of russia. im not saying hitler was a good guy or nice or anything like that, im saying he wasnt as evil as your school history books make him out to be, hitler considered the german speaking countries to be a part of germany stolen by others (im not condoning him invading but still), YOU DONT DESTROY A COUNTRY, you conquer it and assimilate the populace into your own. the red army wasnt an especially good one, just a big one

1, lucky breed cause they have stupid enemies every time, and cause its literally the coldest winter in history every time someone invades them, THEY themselves killed almost all of their people that wasnt soldiers 3. he didnt enslave people, he only invaded the countries that had german speaking people in them, and only reason he engaged france and great brittain is cause they engaged him, he claimed racial superiority to separate his people from the enemies and give them confidence, and again you fail, he didnt try to destroy things, HE TRIED TO CONQUER THEM, CONQUERORS DOESNT DESTROY, THEY CONQUER, russia was besides a huge threat to germany, besides stalin was a WAY bigger killer then hitler ever was, stalin killed more of his own people then hitler killed jews french and brittanians combined

So it has come to you defending Hitler. Very well. To refute your uneducated claims: 1) again with the lucky breed. "have stupid enemies every time"? How is a force that conquered all the rest of the Europe "stupid"? Do you think Napoleon was stupid? Hitler - he was anything but stupid. No, Russia's enemies were smart, powerful, and large in numbers. The weather helped, of course, but only to a certain extent. Scorched earth strategy was the logical strategy to use for a country that big. It's the strategic GENIUS of Russian commanders and the bravery of Russia's people that won the war, not the "stupidity" of their enemies or luck. "Luck" doesn't decide years-long wars. 2) "only invaded countries with german-speaking people"? So if a country has a german-speaking person in it, it's alright to invade it? Are you even being serious with this? Destroying things you can't control is the only way to conquer, otherwise you'll have an opposition in the rear when you're fighting in the front. Racism is what Nazism basically is. Are you trying to defend racism in some way? 3) Stalin, you say? Then it's even greater a feat for Russian people to have persevered against all odds, with a ruthless enemy in the front and an equally ruthless dictator in the back. Can't you understand? I'm not talking about politics here, I'm talking about the heroism of the Red Army, which even Churchill, who was in avid opposition to Communism, praised for its sacrifice.

The Germans could not fight properly in the Russian winter, their armored corps froze, their infantry did not have proper winter gear, and they had little training in winter warfare.
You can't ignore the fact that they took almost all of Europe and then pushed the Russians as far back as they did before winter hit, Russia's greatest defense is her winter. If Hitler would have committed to taking out Britain before anything else, the war would have ended differently. The Germans lost because of bad decisions.

That is typical American behavior for you, taking credit for something the generations before them did because today America doesn't amount to **** anymore.

Governemt debt?
Here's a rad idea, lets just raise the debt bar limit, problem solved. While at the same time we bitch about Europe who need to get their finances in cotrol.

Terrorism?
-Took you long enough to find some doofus named Bin Laden in his own house.
-Took you long enough to find some dictator holed in the ground.

but yea keep on cheering 'muricah for all the good thats done to you.
This guy said it how it is and I never believed any American would amount up to admitting something like this guy did. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs